You are viewing an old version of this page. View the current version.

Compare with Current View Page History

« Previous Version 2 Next »

Time/Place

This meeting is a hybrid teleconference and IRC chat. Anyone is welcome to join...here's the info:

Attendees

Agenda

  1. Alignment Sprint 1 Progress Report
    1. 2018 Spring API Alignment Sprint 1 Planning
    2. Compatibility Test Suite 
  2. Updates from spec editors on External Content: Redirect or Proxy?
  3. ?

Ticket Summaries

  1. Please squash a bug!

    key summary type created updated due assignee reporter priority status resolution

    Unable to locate Jira server for this macro. It may be due to Application Link configuration.

  2. Tickets resolved this week:

    key summary type created updated due assignee reporter priority status resolution

    Unable to locate Jira server for this macro. It may be due to Application Link configuration.

  3. Tickets created this week:

    key summary type created updated due assignee reporter priority status resolution

    Unable to locate Jira server for this macro. It may be due to Application Link configuration.

Minutes

  1. API compatibility sprints
    1. 8 participants for first sprint
  2. Compatibility test suite
    1. try out the test suite and add bug reports to GitHub
    2. Randall: has run the test suite (21 failures out of 63 tests) as part of rampu-up process
    3. Danny B: has encountered false positives in test suite
  3. External content
    1. discussed on spec editors call
    2. Esme: general agreement that expiration parameter is not appropriate for indicating caching/proxying/redirect
    3. interest in using a Prefer header; cleaner mechanism
    4.  External Content Discussion:  Andrew Woods has started a proposal to try to land this issue: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1tGIX3XxU3km2kshgvrU5BOcLomwDKt5Oi0vPZJRB1Vc/edit?usp=sharing_eil&ts=5a9811c1
  4. Sprint Planning
    1. Danny B: first stab at a outline of tasks for alignment sprint 1
    2. potential conflict between spec 3.6.1 and fcrepo.properties.management=relaxed
      1. Peter: it is an issue
      2. Esme: i think "attempts to modify resource statements that a server disallows" is the key — does setting that property make those properties effectively not server-managed?
      3. Peter: is there a list of server-managed/unchangable triples?
      4. Jared: https://www.w3.org/TR/ldp/#dfn-ldp-server-managed-triples
        1. LDP has a narrow server-managed triples definition
      5. the property removes the "server-managed" constraints
      6. fcrepo spec is silent on what server-managed means
      7. Danny B: do we need to indiciate servers MAY constain additional properties
      8. Peter: call them server-constrained instead of server-managed?
      9. Jared: LDP server may ignore properties beyond server-managed
        1. https://www.w3.org/TR/ldp/#ldpr-put-replaceall
      10. server-managed properties may be a server configurable set
    3. 3.7.1 clarification
      1. can add a non-RDF-source type to an RDF-source, but can't remove the RDF-source type
      2. LDP-RS and LDP-NR are disjoint
      3. Danny B: this is a bug, if you can change LDP-RS to LDP-NR, without changing the interaction type
      4. can only change interaction model to a subtype, so the request should fail
    4. 5.6 clarification
      1. Peter: user agent URIs are not retrieved
      2. Danny B: is there a conflict between cross-domain group listing and having groupAgent.baseUri?
        1. Peter: not unless it is used for retrieval; if it is just a translation layer between e.g. LDAP and acl:agent, it should be fine
      3. https://github.com/fcrepo4/fcrepo4/blob/6034a73c0b3acca0622362b3c06dd48169b4a535/fcrepo-auth-webac/src/main/java/org/fcrepo/auth/webac/WebACRolesProvider.java#L467 is used to get string agents from URIs, using system properties
      4. Esme: agrees the agent URIs can be anything, so even if the group ACLs need to be in the repository, that doesn't constrain what the agent URIs can be
    5. Sprint planning table
      1. goal: have at least placeholders for all JIRAs before sprint starts
      2. does this seem like a sensible approach?
        1. Peter: sounds good
      3. call for people to flesh out JIRAs
        1. Randall Floyd and Jared Whiklo volunteered to help flesh out JIRAs over the next two days in preparation for the sprint.
      4. Randall: how much background knowledge does it require?
        1. Danny B: will keep an eye out for good entrypoint issues for Randall
      5. Yinlin: do we have a sprint planning meeting on next Monday?
      6. Danny B: good idea, will send out Doodle poll to pick a time: 
        1. Sprint Kick Off Doodle: please fill it out https://doodle.com/poll/fpb83rec8f8xmhfi
      7. Randall: will we have standups?
      8. Danny B: yes; usually a virtual standup via IRC
      9. Peter: previous sprints have used Monday & Friday calls as well
      10. Danny B: maybe midweek for the first week

Action Items

  • Danny Bernstein to look for JIRA ticket around changing interaction model type. 
  • Danny Bernstein to touch base with Peter and Aaron regarding the Resource Authorization portion of the delta spec. 
  • Jared Whiklo to create issue for the pass/fail on the Compatibility Test Suite
  • Danny Bernstein reach out for more documentation/testing people.
  • Danny Bernstein determine whether there is any case where a PUT on a TimeMap would make sense. If there is it should be raised with the specification editors.
  • Peter Eichman to do a short writeup on the use of userAgent and groupAgent base URI's and their relationship to WebAC in order to clarify whether or not what if anything needs improvement/clarification/alignment. ACL Agents - Strings vs. URIs
  • No labels

All content on the LYRASIS Wiki is licensed under the CC BY (Attribution) license, unless otherwise noted.